P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10438 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. G R E G O R YJO Y , al soknow n as G r eg Joy, D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 5 :06 -C R -2 3 -7 U SD C N o. 5: 07- C V
- 137 B ef ore R E AV L E Y , JO L LY , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * G r e go r y Jo y, fe de r alp ri so ne r#3 45 89 - 17 7, pl e ad e d g ui l t y t o po s s e s s i ng l e s s t han 50 g r am s o f c r ac k c o c ai ne w i t h i nt e nt t o di s t r ibut e i t , and ai di ng and a b etti n g. T h e p l ea ag ree m en t con tain eda p rov i sion w a iv in gh i s ri gh t t o c hal l enge hi s c onvi c t i on o rs ent enc e o n appealori n a c oll at er alpr oc ee di ng, t h ou gh he r e s e rve d the r i ghtt o a ppe alas e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng t he s t at ut ory m axim u m or basedon an err or of ari t h m et i c, t o chal l en ge t h e vol u n t ari n ess of United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

12, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10438

2 t h e pl ea or t h e app ealw aiver, an d to brin ga c la im of i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of c o uns e l . H e w as s e nt e nc e d t o apr i s o n t e r m o f 2 00 m o nt hs , w hi c h was w i t hi n t he gu i del i n es r an ge. J o yd idn o t f

i l e a n o tic e o f a p p e a l, b u t h e in s te a ds o u g h t t o v a c a te h is s e nt e nc e pur s uantt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 255 . The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d r e l i e f a nd d e clin e dto is s u e ac e r t if ic a t e o f a p p e a la b il it y . T h is c o u r t , h o w e v e r , g r a n t e dJ o y ’s requ estf

or a c ert i f

i cat e of app eal abili t yon the i ssues w h et h er hi s c ou n sel

“ r e n d e r e din e ffe c t iv e a s s is t a n c e b yfa il in gto fi le an o t ic e o f a p p e a l o n J o y ’s b e h a lf a n dw h e th e rJ o yw a s e n tit le dto a n e v id e n tia r yh e a r in go n th is cla im .” A ft er J oyfi l edh i s a p p ell a n t b ri ef, w e gr a n tedth e G ov ern m en t’ s m oti on to r e m andt he c as e t o t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o ra n e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng. Fo l l o w i ng t he e vi de nt i ary he ar i ng, the c as e w as r e t ur ne d t o t hi s co ur tand br i e f i ng r e s um e d. T h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s n o w file dits a p p e lle e b r ie f, a n d J o yh a s n o t file dare p ly b rie f. Att he e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng, J o y andhi s f o r m e ra t t o r ney ga vec o nf l i c t i ng a c c o u n ts a b o u t w h e th e rJ o ya s k e dth e la w y e rto file an o tic e o f a p p e a l. A ccor di n g t o J oy, in the courtr oom af t er he w as sentenced, he tol d h i s at t orney t h at he w ou l d l i ke an app ealan d h i s at t orney respon dedt h at he w ou l d get back t o J oy. Jo y, how eve r , adm i t t ed thatal t hough he knew t hathe had o nl y a 10- day w i n dow t o f

i l e a n o tice of ap pea l , he d i d n otatt em pt t o contacthi s l aw yer f or s e v e r a l m o n th s a n dth a t h e d idn o t t e ll h is fa m ilya b o u t h is w is h to a p p e a l. H is at t o r ne y t e s t i f

i e d t hat i m m e di at e l y af t e rs e nt e nc i ng, he a nd J o y di s c us s e d the p o s s ib ilityo f a n a p p e a l a n dt h a t h e a d v is e da g a in s t b r in g in ga n a p p e a l; h e d id n o t re m e m b e r J o y a s k in g fo r a n a p p e a l a n dth a t, if J o yh a da s k e dfo ra n a p p e a l, coun selw ou l d h ave p erf ect ed it . Th e m agis t rat e j u dg e f ou n d that Joy di d n ot esta b li sh bya p rep on d era n ce of the ev i d en ce th a t he i n stru ctedcou n sel t o ap pea l . Th e di st ri ctcourtadop t ed the m agis t rat e j u dg e’ s f i n di n gs. W e re v ie w fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo rcle a re r r o r . Un itedS ta tes v. Ca v itt , 550 F .3 d4 3 0 , 4 3 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); seealso Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mays , 466 F. 3d 335, 342N o. 08- 10438

3 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 6) . On t he r e c o r d be f o r e t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e , t he f i ndi ng t hatt he pr e po nde r anc e o f

t he e vi den ce d i d no ts upp o r tJ o y’ s c o nt e nt i o n t hathe i n st ructed hi s l aw yer t o f i l e a noti ce of

app ea l is p lausibl e an d, t h u s, i s not c le a r lye r r o n e o u s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. L on d on , 5 6 8 F .3 d 5 5 3 , 5 6 1 (5 th C ir .) pet i t i on f

or c ert . f

i led(A u g. 11, 20 0 9 ) ( N o. 09-5844). B ecau se Joy ha s not est abli shedt h at he di rect ed h i s l aw yer t o f i l e a no tice o f

app eal , he can n ot s uc c e e d o n hi s c l ai m t hatc o uns e lw as i ne f fe c t ivef

o rfail i ng t o carry o utt he r e q u e s t. Cf

. R oev. Flore s - O r t ega , 528 U . S. 470, 477, 486 ( 2000) ( expl ai ni ng t hat c ounse l ’ s fai l ure to abi de byhi s c l i ent ’ s r eques tt o f i l e anot i c e o f

appeal c o n s tit u te s in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e e v e n w ith o u t as h o w in gth a t t h e a p p e a l w o u ld be m erit ori ou s) . N o rw as i tc l e ar l y e r r o ne o us f o rt he m ag i s t r at e j udg e t o de c l i ne t o fi n dth a t J o y ’ s a tto rn e yfailed to c o n su lt w ith h im g ive n h is a tto r n e y ’s t es t i m ony thathe di sc uss ed the pos sibi l i t y o f an appealw i t h Joy and had a d v is e da g a in s t s u c h a n a p p e a l. Cf . i d. at480. T h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s j u dg m en tden yi n g Joy’ s m ot i on t o vacate hi s s en t en ce i s A F F I RMED.